Agenda, decisions and minutes
Venue: The Council Chamber, Town Hall, Mulberry Place, 5 Clove Crescent, London, E14 2BG
Contact: Simmi Yesmin, Senior Democratic Services Officer Tel: 020 7364 4120, E-mail: simmi.yesmin@towerhamlets.gov.uk
No. | Item | ||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
DECLARATIONS OF DISCLOSABLE PECUNIARY INTEREST PDF 117 KB To note any declarations of interest made by Members, including those restricting Members from voting on the questions detailed in Section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act, 1992. See attached note from the Monitoring Officer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
To note the rules of procedure which are attached for information. Additional documents: Minutes: The rules of procedure were noted.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION |
|||||||||||||||||||||
Additional documents:
Minutes: At the request of the Chair, Mr Mohshin Ali, Licensing Officer, introduced the report, which detailed the application for a new premise licence for Munich Cricket Club, Unit E2 Hertsmere Road, Canary Wharf, London E14 4AE. It was noted that an objection had been received from a local resident. Mr Ali explained that the hours for licensable activities had been reduced from the hours initially applied for and various conditions had been offered by the Applicant.
Mr Matthew Phipps, Legal Representative on behalf of the Applicant, explained that the applicants had no relation to the previous occupiers of the premises and that it was a new application with proposed new hours for licensable activity. He referred Members to page 91 of the agenda which detailed the reduction in the hours sought. These hours mirrored the planning hours.
Mr Phipps noted that all Responsible Authorities had been consulted and there had been no objections as the Applicant had provided a robust set of conditions. Mr Phipps then highlighted the conditions set out in pages 22-25 of the agenda.
Mr Phipps explained that there was only one representation from an individual resident. The concerns that had been raised were in relation to noise being audible, however, an acoustic report had been prepared, with testing taken over a four day period. the The positioning of speakers, the installation of a noise limiter and relevant works would help minimise any noise escape. Mr Phipps referred to the licensable hours for other premises in the area and highlighted that the hours applied for were in line with other premises in the local vicinity.
Mr Phipps noted that there was a dispersal policy, there would be no admission after 23:30 hours and SIA door staff would help reinforce these conditions which would help alleviate the concerns raised.
Mr Andrew Bamber, Compliance Consultant, reaffirmed what was said by Mr Phipps and then gave a brief background of his job roles and experiences to date. He said that on the whole he was very impressed with the management culture at Munich Cricket Club.
Members then heard from Mr Ben Dobbs, resident objector. Mr Dobbs acknowledged the efforts made by the Applicant, however, his primary concern was the longer hours for licensable activities which meant customers would be drinking for longer and leaving at later hours. This would increase the risk of noise disturbance from inside and outside the premises. It was noted that the premises was part of a residential building with flats directly above the premises. There were approximately 220 residents living in the building. Mr Dobbs noted that the building was a conversion of an old warehouse which had original wooden floorings and beams running across the whole building. It was not a modern building and sound distribution went from the basement upwards.
Mr Dobbs expressed his concerns about noise nuisance related to recorded and live music. He said that recorded music was one of the main causes of vibration within the fabric of the building. ... view the full minutes text for item 3.1 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
Application for a New Premises Licence for: Royal PFC 178a Whitechapel Road London E1 1BJ PDF 268 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: At the request of the Chair, Mr Mohshin Ali, Licensing Officer, introduced the report, which detailed the application for a new premise licence for Royal PFC, 178a Whitechapel Road, London E1 1BJ. It was noted that an objection had been received on behalf of the Licensing Authority.
Mr Jumon Islam, a friend representing the Applicant Mr Jubel Miah, explained that the premises has been trading for the past 10 years with a premises licence for the provision of late night refreshments, however, there had recently been a change in the company operating the business . The annual licence fee was paid on 3 January 2019 and subsequently accepted by the Licensing Authority.
Mr Islam explained that the Applicant was unaware that the licence needed to be transferred over to the new company. The Applicant believed the licence was still valid as the name of the premises had remained the same.. Mr Miah explained that as soon as they were informed that the licence had lapsed they stopped selling late night refreshments. Mr Islam stated that longer hours had been applied for due to customer demand, hospital staff that work shifts and in preparation for the opening of Crossrail. It was noted that Mr Miah had SIA security accreditation and the premises had a CCTV camera system in operation.
Members then heard from Ms Samantha Neale, Licensing Officer representing the Licensing Authority, who explained that Four Brothers (UK) Limited had dissolved and there had been no transfer of licence; therefore, the licence had lapsed. When Licensing Services became aware of the lapse, it sent a warning letter to the applicant, and on 1 March 2019 at 11:20pm, a successful test purchase was made at the premises.
Ms Neale explained that the annual fee was paid, however, at the time the fee was received, the Licensing Authority’s Administration Team were not aware the company had changed and therefore a licence was automatically issued.
Ms Neale noted that the hours sought by the Applicant were longer than the previous licence. She added that the Licensing Authority had concerns that management would not be sufficiently responsible to carry out licensable activities. Ms Neale pointed out that there were fewer conditions in the operating schedule than what were in the previous licence and therefore the Applicant was not promoting the licensing objectives.
In response to questions the following was noted:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
EXTENSION OF DECISION DEADLINE: LICENSING ACT 2003 The Sub Committee may be requested to extend the decision deadline for applications to be considered at forthcoming meetings due to the volume of applications requiring a hearing. Where necessary, details will be provided at the meeting.
Minutes: The Chair agreed to extend the decision deadlines for the following applications;
|